Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured routing skill with clean progressive disclosure, but its actionability and workflow clarity are limited because executable steps and validation feedback loops live in referenced files rather than inline.
Suggestions
Inline at least one short concrete example per major workflow (e.g. a sample conventional-commit message format or the exact branch->push->PR command sequence) so the body is actionable without opening references.
Add an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint for the push/PR/release workflows (e.g. verify CI status or a clean working tree before proceeding) to lift workflow clarity above the destructive-operations cap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean 41-line body with no concept re-explanation or padding; every section earns its place and defers detail to references. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete pointers ("Read the requested command template from references/source-commands.md") and safe-default rules, but the executable steps themselves are deferred to a reference rather than stated inline. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Execution rules are sequenced with a confirmation gate before side effects, but workflows involving destructive/external git operations lack an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop, capping clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references (source-commands.md, command-catalog.md), both of which are real files, with detail appropriately split out. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |